CREDIT CARDHOLDERS' BILL OF RIGHTS ACT OF 2009
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr . BACHUS . Mr. Speaker, I think all of us in this body have had constituents call and complain that what they saw were unfair and deceptive credit card practices, and in many cases, these practices were not fair.
As a result of that, the Financial Services Committee, working with the Federal Reserve, proposed--and the Federal Reserve has now adopted--changes. The things that have been talked about by Members of this body in the debate last week and in the debate today are taken care of in the Federal Reserve's requirements. In fact, they went through a long public process. They had over 60,000 public comments about the issues, and they issued, actually, 1,200 pages of changes in our credit card regulations. This included going up on balance fees. This included double-cycle billing. This included giving people a longer period of time from the time their statement was mailed to the time they had to get a payment in--all of the things, I think, that most of us have received calls on.
One matter that we raised when this bill was before us--and I want to commend the Senate, and I want to commend the Democratic majority in the House--was this idea in the original legislation that you could apply for a number of credit cards, but it would not go on your credit report until you activated that card. I think, as a result of the debate 2 weeks ago, we took a closer look at that, and we did pass an amendment by AARON SCHOCK, which, I think, will close the door to a lot of fraud in that regard. I appreciate the majority's support on that. I think the Senate further closed that loophole, and I think we've struck the right balance there.
As for the supporters of this bill, I don't question their sincerity, and I don't question their motivation. They and the American people want credit card reform. What we had said is there is tremendous reform in the Fed's proposals, in the Federal Reserve's proposals, and we felt like those ought to have a chance. We expressed why we were for those reforms which were going into effect next July and not for this bill.
One of our concerns--and I think that this bill will do this, and I hope I'm wrong--is that this legislation, I believe, will restrict credit for those who don't have the best credit reports. They're really the people who probably need credit the most. In fact, the subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Hensarling, referred to a New York Times article. Now, that article and an article that appeared in today's Washington Post really express some of the same concerns that the gentleman from Texas and I expressed 2 weeks ago, which is that we are going to have several things happen as a result of this bill.
One is we're going to have a restriction of credit. The Washington Post article does quote from the Financial Services Roundtable, but they say that they believe that credit could be reduced by as much as $2 billion. That's not very good timing if that's done, ladies and gentlemen of the House.
As I have said and as I said yesterday in the Rules Committee, I fear that many Americans will not be able to renew their credit cards or I fear that their credit card lines will be reduced. Sometimes maybe this is good, but I think, in a time of economic crisis, it's going to be somewhat ill-timed.
The New York Times and The Washington Post both mention that they believe, as a result of this legislation, you are not going to see any offers to transfer balances at zero percent. They also say the most creditworthy customers, those who pay every month and who haven't had to pay interest, will probably have to as a result of these changes. They probably will be charged interest. There are predictions in here that there will be the return of higher fees. I hope these predictions don't pan out.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
MR. BACHUS. I want to mention one final thing. The gentlelady from California said that Senator Coburn's amendment was misplaced. I want to say that it's well-placed, and when that comes up, I want to urge the Members to support it and to vote ``yes.'' I applaud the action taken by Mr. Coburn in the Senate. I think it's important to law-abiding citizens who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) pointed out that one Federal judge in one district in Washington arbitrarily, through a ruling, confused the law and changed the law--law by judge. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Washington. The Coburn amendment will provide uniformity on regulations governing the possession of firearms in national parks and refuges, which is of particular concern in carry and in right-to-carry States.
In my own Alabama, a citizen could be exercising his State-granted, concealed carry right and then enter into, for example, the Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge, in my district, and be subject to a violation of Federal regulations, requiring weapons to be unloaded and to be kept out of reach.
I've cosponsored the National Parks Firearm Bill here in the House to address what is a patchwork of regulations. To me, it would be a violation of the Constitution and of our Forefathers' intent if someone exercising his Second Amendment right were to suddenly cross a line, go into a national park and find himself facing a Federal judge and a fine because of the uncertainty.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Coburn amendment, which would eliminate the conflicting Federal regulations and would allow honest citizens to carry firearms in national parks and in wildlife refuges.